If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think Force Fetch isn't used, because it isn't needed here? Our dogs are all bred with an enormous desire to pick things up, hold them and fetch them, and this is encouraged in a positive manner around the home. There is no need to go through a process of forcing them to hold/fetch something and making it into an action of pressure/fear? I've never had a lab that I have had to force or even encourage to hold/carry/fetch. They all just want to do that?

.
A very common miss conception of force fetch. Basically has nothing to do with "fetching, holding or carrying" at all. It's more about introducing the dog to "pressure" and teaching them compliance = easing of pressure.
I will email you tomorrow 2 PDF charts by John Cavanaugh showing a training progression, one using e-collar and one without using e-collar.
I think I still have your www n email not sure.
Cheers.

.
A very common miss conception of force fetch. Basically has nothing to do with "fetching, holding or carrying" at all. It's more about introducing the dog to "pressure" and teaching them compliance = easing of pressure.
I will email you 2 PDF charts by John Cavanaugh showing a training progression, one using e-collar and one without using e-collar.
Cheers.

What does HSS stand for?

To Kennel Maiden,

I hope you're keeping an open mind and enjoying the comments.

You are right that a big part of the FT's is about the water. The difference: We're an island too. We just have much more distance between points. With more distance - control erodes!

On the "force fetch": My opinion is that it all comes down to how one defines "force Fetch".

My personal interpretation is that it is a conditioned retrieve response. We decide, as trainers, how much compulsion we want to build into the dog, while balancing how much desire the dog already possesses.

I know some in N.A. want to state that FF has nothing to do with going to retrieve and delivering to hand. I personally believe that is an extreme comment and not accurate.

There is no "right" there is no "wrong".

What you all do with your dogs in your trials is wonderful. It is awesome. It is amazing. It is also different from what we do in our trials here.

"Determining and applying the criteria for when and when not to use correction is the essence of the art of dog training. I make a distinction between a mistake and a lack of effort." - Mike Lardy - Volume I "After Collar Conditioning"

km - as has been already mentioned, most of the US based programmes can be used without e collars. To me, the major strength of the US approach is their disciplined step by step approach to training. The drills are fantastic as is the emphasis on keeping things simple and backing up when things get too confusing for the dog - ie simplify!. Carol Cassidy for instance has a book on training a retriever - drills and more. All of which can be done without a collar. Re FF - long before I had ever heard of US systems there was something called the trained retrieve which was all about holding and fetching from hand, etc. Very similar to FF but without the ear pinch. I have had a lot of success now with my dogs - the last three trained using US drills/programmes and would never go any other way.

Some people here seem very quick to use the collar but the better trainers always emphasise the teaching rather than correcting! The correction comes later and relatively seldom with a well trained dog.

Some people here seem very quick to use the collar but the better trainers always emphasise the teaching rather than correcting! The correction comes later and relatively seldom with a well trained dog.

Oh, absolutely! It is unfair to pressure (or punish) a dog for things you've not taught. And dogs seem to have a strong sense of right/wrong, fair/unfair. Maybe that's an anthropomorphism but I believe it strongly. In any event, it's just stupid and destructive to punish when you haven't taught.

km - as has been already mentioned, most of the US based programmes can be used without e collars. To me, the major strength of the US approach is their disciplined step by step approach to training. The drills are fantastic as is the emphasis on keeping things simple and backing up when things get too confusing for the dog - ie simplify!. Carol Cassidy for instance has a book on training a retriever - drills and more. All of which can be done without a collar. Re FF - long before I had ever heard of US systems there was something called the trained retrieve which was all about holding and fetching from hand, etc. Very similar to FF but without the ear pinch. I have had a lot of success now with my dogs - the last three trained using US drills/programmes and would never go any other way.

Some people here seem very quick to use the collar but the better trainers always emphasise the teaching rather than correcting! The correction comes later and relatively seldom with a well trained dog.

Thanks everyone for all your useful input. Like I said at the outset, we will probably have to agree to disagree on the use of FF and e-collar. Those are just not 'tools' that I would use, but the structured approach and drills is certainly something that we could encompass in our training a lot more.

I know the differences in our games, particularly when it comes to retrieving over water and use of nose vs eyes, but there are also I believe some fundamental differences in our dogs too. The dogs I work with have biddability in spades, in addition to their desire to retrieve. So, whereas there are a lot of dogs out there that have a huge amount of desire and drive, many of them can be quite self-motivated in that they are doing it for their own love (and I guess this is where you try and square that off with FF? so they do it for you instead of themselves?). These are not the sort of dogs I want to work with. I prefer the ones that are just trying everything to please you (although I am aware of all the literature that says dogs largely act to please themselves...). I'm trying not to fall into the cliché of saying all your dogs are hard-going, headstrong, 'head bangers'!!! LOL but what I am saying is that I believe that some of ours are very much 'softer' and more biddable, quiet and steady, via years of selective breeding. They are triers and aiming to please, and when things do go wrong a quick sharp tone of the voice is really enough to register a 'correction'.

Thanks for all your thoughts. I've found a copy of Smartworks, which I had forgotten I had on my shelf. So, am going to read through that (I already have that Carol Cassidy drill book, which is useful) and try and motivate myself to take a more structured approach to the training of my youngster for the new year.... Happy Training!

Thanks everyone for all your useful input. Like I said at the outset, we will probably have to agree to disagree on the use of FF and e-collar. Those are just not 'tools' that I would use, but the structured approach and drills is certainly something that we could encompass in our training a lot more.

I know the differences in our games, particularly when it comes to retrieving over water and use of nose vs eyes, but there are also I believe some fundamental differences in our dogs too. The dogs I work with have biddability in spades, in addition to their desire to retrieve. So, whereas there are a lot of dogs out there that have a huge amount of desire and drive, many of them can be quite self-motivated in that they are doing it for their own love (and I guess this is where you try and square that off with FF? so they do it for you instead of themselves?). These are not the sort of dogs I want to work with. I prefer the ones that are just trying everything to please you (although I am aware of all the literature that says dogs largely act to please themselves...). I'm trying not to fall into the cliché of saying all your dogs are hard-going, headstrong, 'head bangers'!!! LOL but what I am saying is that I believe that some of ours are very much 'softer' and more biddable, quiet and steady, via years of selective breeding. They are triers and aiming to please, and when things do go wrong a quick sharp tone of the voice is really enough to register a 'correction'.

L, we've always agreed to disagree, but seems just as with the e-collar and your (and consensus UK) thoughts way back when that we use the e-collar as a "last resort" in training a retriever or retrieving gundog rather than systematically and through the method known as "indirect pressure," force fetch is used on dogs with the greatest desire (and often the most sensitivity as well) as integral to a program - not for upping the desire, taming a headbanger, or "squaring" things on dogs that are not the sort you want to work with. So you've not fallen into cliche, but as Breck noted, maybe into misconception.

What we're trying to get through to you is, it doesn't matter the dog, its temperament, its nose, or its breed, if it's an American field trial dog (or British dog running American FTs), it's going to be force fetched. And your speaking (in generalities) that "some of ours are very much 'softer' and more biddable, quiet and steady, via years of selective breeding," voila, these are the perfect candidates for force fetching, the e-collar and finding themselves in a program through samesaid for our competition too.

Lastly, don't think genetics ("years of selective breeding" - which is our MO too in turning out the most athletic and intelligent dogs on the planet [speaking in generalities]) has a lot to do with steadiness, and know it doesn't confer or withhold any AC/DC gene or punishment absorbent gene (for FF) on anyone's breeding program(me).

And "sharp tone of voice" in issuing a correction at 350 yards would have to belong to Luciano Pavarotti - though again, you're still not understanding that indirect pressure is how 99% of our e-collar corrections are made; they're not based on amperage or zapping a dog unawares, but yes, to close this circle, it all comes back to programmatic training.

L, we've always agreed to disagree, but seems just as with the e-collar and your (and consensus UK) thoughts way back when that we use the e-collar as a "last resort" in training a retriever or retrieving gundog rather than systematically and through the method known as "indirect pressure," force fetch is used on dogs with the greatest desire (and often the most sensitivity as well) as integral to a program - not for upping the desire, taming a headbanger, or "squaring" things on dogs that are not the sort you want to work with. So you've not fallen into cliche, but as Breck noted, maybe into misconception.

MG

MG, that's absolutely unfair! I know exactly how the e-collar is used, and I am not disagreeing with it at all (we just don't use it). The way it is used in USA is the correct way to use it. The way it is used punitively, here, as a 'last resort' is totally the incorrect way to use it. I never at all implied that you use it for taming a head-banger or squaring up. So, I resent that implication.

I knew as soon as I mentioned the differences between our dogs I would be in for trouble! So, I retract all that, as it clearly doesn't sit well with you. I have my beliefs on that, but will keep them to myself in future.

Clearly, I am completely misguided and I will have to accept that!

Like I said, I wasn't trying to pick an argument, just get some creative input, and largely this has been achieved. Thanks.

Do you incorporate a quirt or heeling stick into your training? a slip lead? choke or prong collar?

No to all of the above, except a slip lead, which is used to signify the dog is not working, relaxed, and then taken off once work commences, under the judge. No idea even what a 'quirt' is?!! and somebody did try and explain 'heeling stick' to me once, but it looks a bit like a riding crop?..... Don't need any of those things.